sheets_discover

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that it "reveals hidden tools" and must be called first, which are beyond the annotations, but it omits anything about result format or how the revealed tools are namespaced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the trailing ops enumeration ("create, get, read_range... +20 more; 7 generated ops: spreadsheets") is dense and the phrase "7 generated ops: spreadsheets" is cryptic and adds noise rather than clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully states that it returns a catalog and reveals hidden tools, which tells the agent what to expect. The confusing ops/generated-ops tail and the absent guidance on the query filter keep it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single query parameter is documented as "Filter keyword" in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional meaning about what the query filters on, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (lists the catalog, reveals hidden sheets tools) tied to the "sheets" domain, which reads clearly against siblings like gmail_discover or drive_discover. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from discover_all, which is the closest sibling and the obvious overlap risk.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"call first, then call the tool by name" gives concrete ordering guidance for the two-phase flow. It lacks any exclusion or comparison to discover_all, so an agent can't tell when NOT to use this versus the aggregate discovery tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.